Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the xPts ranking basis and sort semantics but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or how ties/empty results behave, so it only modestly exceeds what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the purpose and then enumerates filters and sort modes. Efficient, though the trailing list of sort options slightly duplicates the schema enum.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the core intent and filter/sort surface well. It leaves the 'horizon' parameter unmentioned and gives no hint about result contents, but with 100% schema coverage and full annotations those gaps are minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter (sort, team, price range, ownership, position, limit, horizon) is already documented inline. The description restates the filter dimensions and the meaning of the sort modes but adds no syntax, format, or default behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. It also omits the 'horizon' (gameweeks ahead) parameter entirely.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (FPL players) and pins the ranking basis to 'FPL Copilot expected points (xPts)'. This is clearly distinct from sibling get_player (single lookup) and compare_players, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Use this to...' framing gives a clear implied context for filtered ranking searches, but it never states when to prefer this over compare_players or get_player, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than specified.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.